Journal of the Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회지)

The Korean Geographical Society (대한지리학회)
권호 표지

An Analysis of Students' Graphicacy in Korea Based on the National Assessment of Educational Achievement, from 2005 to 2007

우리나라 학생들의 학교급별 도해력 발달수준 분석 - 2005${\sim}$2007년 국가수준 학업성취도 평가를 중심으로-

  • Park, Sun-Mee (Dept. of Social Studies Education, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Hye-Sook (Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation) ;
  • Lee, Eui-Han (Dept. of Geography Education, Kangwon National University)
  • Published : 2009.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study aims to rethink the meaning of graphicacy, discuss the possible criteria to evaluate the level of graphicacy, and show how the graphicacy differs through different grades. First, it finds that as school grades advance, implicit information processing abilities, and conceptual information processing abilities were more required comparing to explicit information processing abilities, when interpreting graphic data. Secondly, the percentage of items which examinee showed a proficient level, decreased as school grades advanced. Thirdly, the graphicacy level of sixth graders was the status of being able to derive explicit information from pictorial maps and read implicit information in simple contour map or line graphs. Ninth graders were able to infer causal relationship between geographic phenomenons by utilizing graphic materials. Tenth graders could read graphic materials by utilizing simple knowledge and experience.

본 연구는 도해력의 의미를 점검하고 도해력의 발달수준을 판단할 수 있는 기준에 대해 검토한 후, 2005${\sim}$2007년까지 의 학업성취도 문항중 그래픽 자료를 활용한 문항을 중심으로 학교급별로 기대되는 도해력의 수준과 실제 숙달 수준을 분석하는 데 그 목적이 있다. 그 결과를 정리하면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 학교급이 올라갈수록 그래픽 자료를 읽는 데 명시적 정보추출능력보다는 함축적 정보추출능력과 개념적 정보추출능력이 많이 요구된다. 둘째, 전체 문항 중 숙달 수준에 해당하는 문항의 비율은 학교급이 올라갈수록 낮아진다. 셋째, 학교급별 숙달 수준은 초등학교의 경우 단순한 지도에 명시된 정보나 등고선, 단순한 지도, 기본적인 선 그래프 등에 함축된 정보를 읽을 수 있는 수준이고, 중학교의 경우 제시된 자료를 활용해 지도와 그래프에 나타난 지리적 현상의 직접적인 인과관계를 추론할 수 있는 수준이며, 고등학교의 경우 일상생활의 경험을 통해 습득한 지식을 적용해 그래픽 자료를 읽을 수 있는 수준이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김창환, 1994, '지도 읽기와 지도교육,' 우리교육, 1994년 8월호, 170-173
  2. 서태열, 2005, 지리교육학의 이해, 한울아카데미, 서울
  3. 이경한.배화정, 2000, '학습자 중심의 문제해결수업을 통한 도해력 신장 방안 연구,'지리.환경교육, 8(1), 17-35
  4. 최낭수, 1998, '지도교육을 통해서 본 도해력의 중요성,' 지리.환경교육, 6(1), 15-30
  5. 한국교육과정평가원, 2006, 2005년 국가수준 학업성취도평가 연구-사회-
  6. 한국교육과정평가원, 2007, 2006년 국가수준 학업성취도평가 연구-사회-
  7. 한국교육과정평가원, 2008, 2007년 국가수준 학업성취도평가 연구-사회-
  8. 함경림, 2008, 그래프 특성이 학습자의 그래프 해석에 미치는 영향, 이화여자대학교 석사학위논문
  9. Aberg-Bengtsson, L. and Ottosson, T., 2006, What lies behind graphicacy? Relating students’ results on a test of graphically represented quantitative information to formal academic achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(1), 43-62 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20087
  10. Balchin, W. G. V., 1985, Graphicacy comes of age, Teaching Geography, 11(1), 8-9
  11. Bertin, J., 1983, Semiology of Graphics, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison
  12. Carswell, C. M., Emery, C., and Lonon, A. M., 1993, Stimulus complexity and information integration in the spontaneous interpretation of line graphs, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 341-357 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070407
  13. Catling, S., 1995, Mapping the environment with children, in De Villiers, M.(ed.), Developments in Primary Geography: Theory and Practice, Geographical Association, Sheffield
  14. Davies, P., 2002, Level of attainment in geography, Assessment in Education, 9(2), 185-204 https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594022000001922
  15. Denzin, N., 2000, The practices and politics of interpretation, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.(eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, London
  16. Dijk, H. van, Schee, J. van der, Trimp, H., and Zijpp, T. van der, 1994, Map skills and geographical knowledge, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 3, 68-80
  17. Freundschuh, S. M., 1991. The effect of the pattern of the environment on spatial knowledge acquisition, in Mark, D. M. and Frank, A. U.(eds), Cognitive and Linguistic Aspects of Geographic Space, Kluwer Academic Publisher, London
  18. Guthrie, J. T., Weber, S., and Kimmerly, N., 1993, Searching documents: cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables and illustrations, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186-221 https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1993.1017
  19. Hirtle, S. C. and Hudson, J., 1992, Acquisition of spatial knowledge for routes, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11(4), 335-347 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80106-9
  20. Huynh, H., 1994, Some Technical Aspects of Standard Setting, Paper presented at Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessment, Washington, D. C.
  21. Kinnear, P. R. and Wood, M., 1987, Memory for topographic contour maps, British Journal of Psychology, 78, 395-402 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1987.tb02257.x
  22. Kirby, J. R., 1994, Comprehending and using maps: are there two modes of map processing?, in Schnotz, W. and Kulhavy, R.(eds.), Comprehension of Graphics, North-Holland, Amsterdam
  23. Kirby, J. R. and Schofield, N. J., 1991, Spatial cognition:the case of map comprehension, in Evans, G.(ed.), Learning and Teaching Cognitive Skills, Australian Council for Educational Research
  24. Kosslyn, S. M., 1985. Graphics and human information processing: a review of five books, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 499-512 https://doi.org/10.2307/2288463
  25. Kosslyn, S. M., 1989, Understanding charts and graphs, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 195-226
  26. Kulhavy, R. W., Lee, J. B., and Caterino, L. C., 1985, Conjoint retention of maps and related discourse, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 28-37 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(85)90003-7
  27. Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Peterson, S. E., Pridemore, D. R., and Klein, J. D., 1992, Using maps to retrieve text: a test of conjoint retention, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 56-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(92)90046-2
  28. Lanca, M. and Kirby, J. R., 1995, Verbal and spatial processes in map learning, Journal of Cartographic Perspectives, 21, 3-15
  29. Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., and Stein, M. K., 1990, Functions, graphs, and graphing: tasks, learning, and teaching, Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1-64 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
  30. Lowe, R. K., 1999, Constraints on the effective of diagrams as resources for conceptual change, in Schnotz, W., Vosniadou, S., and Carretero, M.(eds.), New Perspectives On Conceptual Change, Elsevier, London
  31. Lowe, R. K., 2003, Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics, Learning and Instruction, 13, 247-262
  32. Mackinley, J. D., 1987, Automatic Design of Graphical Presentations, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University
  33. Molyneux, F. and Tolley, H., 1987, Teaching Geography; A Teaching Skills Workbook, Macmillan Education, London
  34. NAEP Geography Consensus Project, 1994, Geography Framework for the 1994, National Assessment of Educational Progress, The National Assessment Governing Board, Washington, D. C
  35. Olson, D., 1994, The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
  36. Paivio, A., 1986, Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, Oxford. University Press, New York
  37. Postigo, Y. and Pozo, J, I., 2001, When a graph is worth a thousand data: graph interpretation by adolescent student, in 9th European Conference for Research on Learning and Instruction
  38. Postigo, Y. and Pozo, J. I., 2004, On the road to graphicacy: the learning of graphical representation systems, Educational Psychology, 24(5), 623-644 https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341042000262944
  39. Rossano, M. J. and Hodgson, S. L., 1994, The process of learning from small-scale maps, Applied Cognitive Pyschology, 8(6), 565-582 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350080604
  40. Schnotz, W., 1993, Understanding Logical Pictures(Research Rep. 1), Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Department of Educational Psychology
  41. Schnotz, W. and Bannert, M., 2003, Construction and interference in learning from multiple representations, Learning and Instruction, 13, 141-156 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(02)00017-8
  42. Taylor, H. A. and Tversky, B., 1992, Spatial mental models derived from survey and route descriptions, Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 261-282 https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90014-O
  43. Thorndyke, P. W. and Hayes-Roth, B., 1982, Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation, Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560-589 https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(82)90019-6
  44. Veriki, I., 2002, What is the value of graphical displays in learning?, Educational Psychological Review, 14, 261-312 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016064429161
  45. Wedman, I. and Westerlund, A., 1992, The dimensionality of the Swedish scholastic aptitude test, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36, 21-39 https://doi.org/10.1080/0031383920360102
  46. White, J. V., 1984, Using Charts and Graphs. 1000 Ideas for Visual Persuasion, R. R. Bowker Company, New York